Most intellectual discussions inevitably, sooner or later, hit a dead end, when they arrive at the question of what “good” or “bad”¹ means, because nobody knows the answer. They typically contain assessments, evaluations or deliberations about some future directions. “Is it good when…?” or “would it be better if…?” or “is A or B better?”². Without an answer, any discussion becomes pointless. This extends way out from intellectual discourse though. Any decisions, from little personal things to wides scale policies, can only reasonably be made if we are clear about what the goal is³.

Unfortunately, not having a definition is a pervasive issue because even philosophers have been struggling with it without much success. Good thing is, the answer exists. Not fully explicit for all situations, but one that is as good as is possible within the reality we live in, to a degree from which the explicit definition can always be derived on a case by case basis.

The bad news is that it is not too easy. What we would want is to have one definition of good that is true at all times and places. A definition that is universal. As far as I am concerned, it does not exist. Not in this universe, at least. The only known universal laws are the laws of physics. This is not to say that the universal definition is guaranteed to not exist. There might as well be something outside this universe, such as the “outside the simulation” that is pretty clear about what our “good” should be. But since there is zero evidence of it, we might as well consider it non-existent. In a contrast to this, majority of people on earth believe in universal good and bad. They believe there is some god who told them what it is. But, as far as I can tell, all of that was made up by people for their own practical ends and there is no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. Popularly, there are also traditional or intuitive definitions. But these are not definitions. They are ever changing outlines or sets of examples, and they do not go to the core.

When asked what “good” is, apparently the automatic human intuition is to look for this universal truth – because it is simple and it is what we were always taught. But when pressed, prople find that it is in fact just a phantasm and they actually don’t know. They then throw their hands in the air and end up as post-modern relativists.

With the easy solution inaccessible, we need to roll up our sleeves and look closer. Since nature does not give an answer valid everywhere and for everyone, we need to ask the next question. “Good” for whom?

The universe is just rocks, atoms and laws of physics. It does not care. Even “nature” does not care. Whatever happens, it will go on, without any consideration. The only part of the universe that does care are people. It is only us that care about good and bad and only for us it is relevant. Everything else, including other living things without rational capacity, do not consider such things. “Good” is, therefore, only relevant with regard to humans.

More specifically, it derives from human values, and from this the definition already follows – although it is not yet a complete answer. Good is whatever promotes and develops our values (and bad is what goes against and hampers them)⁴.

So this gives us a clear definition of goodness. It is not as simple as one universal good – it is derived from humans and their values. If the values are well specified⁵, what is good and what is not then follows objectively and clearly.

It seems that we have not solved anything and instead we have only delegated the problem to yet another elusive word. But it is actually a useful progress, because unlike the esoteric word “good”, values are something that we can personally relate to. It is something that we all have (with varying degrees of awareness and clarity), and what we do in our lives – the directions we take, decisions we make, and yes, what we consider good and bad, depends on what we value.

A complication, as before, is that humans are not one unified entity, and there is no one universal set of values, either. Every person has their own values – they are subjective. One person values friendship, another dog welfare, third values the terrified expression of their enemies. How people “choose” their values is a complicated topic. It is a mix of tendencies and preferences we are born with, all sorts of outside influences throughout our life, and our own deliberations and rational decisions⁶. What matters is that people do have values and the values differ between them. These individual values are the real foundation everything else stands on. We can consider, and often hear about, some derived values, such as values of a company, a country or values of a time period. These are some conglomerates of values of people it concerns, or just something that someone made up in order to achieve their ends. Although these “higher order” values feed back and influence what the individual people value, it is only the individual values that are have practical impact.

The values, and consequently what good and bad is, being subjective, is chaotic and hard to navigate – especially compared to the one answer valid for everyone that we started with and usually expect. There can be as many different “goods” as there are people and they can often collide. But while complicated, it is how it really is and it is the only way. Every person matters and so do their values. Forgetting or omitting values of individuals and replacing them by some “greater good” and by the “right values” is what gets us to another Reich. That is not to say that we need to agree with other’s values. But we should respect their existence. Then, practically: wherever we are in the debate that leads to “what the hell does good mean”, or making some decision, simply specify which people it concerns, what their values are, and combine them to get the answer. This finally covers both the theoretical question of what good means, and also the practical part of how to find it.

Unfortunately this does not solve too many problems. It is only a clarification of one big question and a stepping stone on the way. The “little point” and the question of how to combine conflicting values of different people is the actual issue and the core of virtually all world conflicts. Solving this is a task for another time.

1. I will use the terms liberally before properly defining them. For now, intuition about them will suffice. ↩︎
2. The term “good” covers everything since “better” only means “more good” and “bad” and “worse” are a direct reverse. ↩︎
3. Decisions and policies are being made regardless. In better cases, they are based on right intuition and fall close to the target. But often the results are bad or catastrophic as a result of this omission. ↩︎
4. This definition comes from objectivism. But as far as I know, objectivism does not go far enough, considering values objective – which is not true. ↩︎
5. A typical person’s values are inconsistent and conflicting, so this is not at all easy. ↩︎
6. It really is as complicated as it gets. Let’s leave it as this – it is a material for not even an article but rather a couple of scientific disciplines put together. ↩︎